Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

fullheadofhair wrote: However, pg 48 makes no mention that IC's can join squads in reserves -

That's because page 48 doesn't contain the rules for Reserves.

Reserves is a mission special rule. In missions that allow it, you follow the rules as laid out in the Reserves entry.

So in a mission using the Reserves special rule, ICs can be joined to units in Reserve... because the Reserves rules say that they can.

Stelek wrote:

In your opinion.

Codex trumps rulebook is the rule in GW games.

So guess which rule actually applies?

Correct, razorback or rhino + drop pod.

Top of page 135 of SM codex,

"Certain Space Marine units have the option of selecting a dedicated transport vehicle."

I guess you could still argue this does not stop you from taking both (since this passage does not apply to tac squads), although it heavily hints at intentions. Considering we are interpreting a part of the codex that is not even written in complete sentences, looking elsewhere for intention or waiting for a FAQ is a good bet.

As an additional reference besides page 135 of the Codex, page 128 states to refer to the rulebook for how dedicated transports work.

My take is that the consistent usage of singular case regarding a unit taking a dedicated transport (as well as the name itself) is a pretty strong case for nixing a unit taking multiple transports.

Spif wrote:I guess you could still argue this does not stop you from taking both (since this passage does not apply to tac squads), although it heavily hints at intentions.

I don't think we really need hints of intentions. I'd be quite convinced even without any suggested intentions in the codex, that GW didn't deliberately allow a squad to take two different transports at the same time.

It may or may not be FAQ'd, but I would doubt that it will be much of an issue regardless, anywhere other than internet rules discussion boards.

Why shouldn't they be allowed to take two transports? Half deploy in pods the other in the razorback. It makes sense really.

gainesdp wrote:As an additional reference besides page 135 of the Codex, page 128 states to refer to the rulebook for how dedicated transports work.

My take is that the consistent usage of singular case regarding a unit taking a dedicated transport (as well as the name itself) is a pretty strong case for nixing a unit taking multiple transports.

I disagree that it's a strong case. I don't think the case holds any water from a grammatical/linguistic standpoint. Using singular noun forms doesn't restrict the meaning in this way unless there's a modifier like "only" or "always" or "exactly" attached to it.

For example, if "I can take a candy bar off the shelf," that doesn't necessarily mean that I can't take two or more. If "I can eat a candy bar" and "my candy bar may have nuts," that doesn't mean that I don't have other candy bars as well.

fullheadofhair wrote:

I am just returning to 40k having not liked v4. The more time I spend on Dakka the more I am leaning to stopping playing again as I remember part of the reason why I stopped playing. I just hate watching this as people bend, stretch and purposely use bad grammar and poor logic to extract an advantage where there is none. I know I know I am going to face some-one like this across a table.

The Dakka YMDC forum is one of the most unusual places in the hobby. To deal appropriately with it, it's better to bear in mind that the discussion here is not about what people will necessarily *do* across a table (or what people should do). Rather the discussion is a mostly-abstract analysis of what the rules actually *say* or don't say. That's just the starting place in deciding what to do.

For example, I read the rules as saying a tac squad can take both transports (and I believe both the logic and the grammar of this reading are good). But I would never actually take two transports in a game because I would feel like a cheezeball. If you're going to spend any time hanging out on YMDC, it's important to keep the two clear in your mind.

Favius Infernus:

You say that you "read the rules a saying a tac [sic] squad can take both transports" and go on to say, parenthetically, that "I believe both the logic and the grammar of this reading are good".

Could you please show us how "the logic and the grammar of this reading are good"?

Though I do not like the RAW approach usually, especially when it is obvious what the developer's intended, I cannot deny the logical conclusions to said approach in certain situations. I do not feel that this is one of those situations.

Saying you can take two transports here is not Rules as Written, it is Rules as Interpretation, based on a poorly worded sentence. Sadly, the interpretation that you cannot take two transports is no more valid, due to the same poorly worded sentence. It is true that the rule does not include "or." But it also does not "may also." It does not say that you can take two transports.

Everyone always says GW rules are restrictive, but this seems to be a very permissive interpretation. I do not think this would be worth quitting 40k over, though.

Rated G wrote: It is true that the rule does not include "or." But it also does not "may also."

It doesn't need to include the 'also'

If I give you two statements:
- You may have an apple
- You may have an orange

Does taking an apple stop you from taking an orange, as the second statement doesn't include an 'also' clause?

No, it doesn't. They're two seperate statements. You can take an apple. And you can take an orange.

Making them exclusive, however, does require a qualifier:

- You may have an apple
- If you don't have an apple, you may have an orange

...would only let you take the orange if you don't have an apple.


The entry is indeed poorly written... but not because it's gramatically unclear... it's very clear. It's only poorly written if we assume that the squad is not intended to be able to take 2 different transports.


Again, not endorsing actually doing so on the table...

So what if there are actually three statements, to the effect that:


1. A person may take an apple.

2. A person may take an orange.

3. Certain people have the option of selecting a piece of fruit.

Are we still allowed to take both an apple and an orange?

insaniak wrote:

The entry is indeed poorly written... but not because it's gramatically unclear... it's very clear. It's only poorly written if we assume that the squad is not intended to be able to take 2 different transports.


Again, not endorsing actually doing so on the table...

It seems to me that even if people think they can do it by RAW, they are still assuming it was not intended. Hence, it is poorly written. Why can they take a rhino and a drop pod, but not two razorbacks? That's silly.

And I do not think your example works very well. If you and I were in a room and you told me that, I would then ask you, "Can I have both?" Dividing it into two statements does not automatically open up both options.

And Nurglitch, I think you might be trying too hard bro. Or maybe I'm just the idiot who doesn't understand what you are getting at.

Rated G:

Well, insaniak claims that if there are two sentences and they do not explicitly exclude each other that they are inclusive. Hence a Tactical Squad can take both a Razorback and a Drop Pod.

However, if there is a third sentence, a context such as the one on p.135 of the Codex, a sentence that makes these two sentences express exclusive propositions, then it seems that the rules as written do in fact say that a player does not have the option of taking both a Razorback and a Drop Pod.

It seems to me that the Tactical Squad entry is clear, and that interpreting it otherwise is interpreting it wrongly and out of context.

Ah, okay. You were directly relating the third sentence to the entry. Got ya.

Nurglitch wrote:So what if there are actually three statements, to the effect that:
1. A person may take an apple.
2. A person may take an orange.
3. Certain people have the option of selecting a piece of fruit.

Are we still allowed to take both an apple and an orange?

That would depend on how the 3rd statement is actually related to the first two. As you've presented them there, it doesn't relate to them at all.

If the list was actually:
1. Certain people have the option of selecting a piece of fruit
2. Those people may take an apple or pear
3. If those poople are wearing blue shirts, they may take an orange

...then we have something closer to the case in point.

Which could certainly be taken to mean that they can only have one of the three fruits presented. There is an ambiguity that results from statement 1 not actually being with the other two in the codex, but being somewhere else instead, though... which allows the argument that the 'a transport' mention elsewhere is just a general statement, and the squad entry would therefore over-ride it specifically for that squad.

Rated G wrote:It seems to me that even if people think they can do it by RAW, they are still assuming it was not intended. Hence, it is poorly written.

How does a few people assuming that a rule wasn't intended to work as written make the rule poorly written?

Rated G wrote:
...
And I do not think your example works very well. If you and I were in a room and you told me that, I would then ask you, "Can I have both?" Dividing it into two statements does not automatically open up both options.
...

The rules permit both. This is what I'm trying to say. The rules for the Srg. say that "The seargeant may replace his bolter/bolt pistol with..." and then lists options. But ho! There are separate statements. Does that make it off-limits to take more than one? When I said earlier that, "There is nothing preventing me from doing it," this was also in the respect that I was being permitted in the first place.

insaniak:

I think your analogy better reflects the situation that is found in Codex: Space Marines. Mine was certainly over-simplified.

However, I disagree that any ambiguity results from having the first statement in the army list section on Dedicated Transports, while the second and third statements fall under the "Dedicated Transport" heading of the Tactical Squad unit entry.

The fact that the second two statements are under the heading "Dedicated Transport" means that any rules concerning dedicated transports are relevant to choices that are made about them. Indeed, the "Dedicated Transport" section of that unit refers us to p.135, specifically about points costs. There is no such ambiguity resulting from being in another part of the book where such a reference/referent exists.

If you want something closer to home, to avoid the specious argument that the Tactical Squad entry somehow over-rides the general rules for Dedicated Transports in the Space Marine Codex, we could take the heading "Dedicated Transport" in the unit entry to unambiguously mean that Tactical squads are limited to selecting one dedicated transport rather than two dedicated transports.

insaniak wrote:

Rated G wrote:It seems to me that even if people think they can do it by RAW, they are still assuming it was not intended. Hence, it is poorly written.

How does a few people assuming that a rule wasn't intended to work as written make the rule poorly written?

Because that is the definition you yourself gave a few posts back: "It's only poorly written if we assume that the squad is not intended to be able to take 2 different transports." A lot of those who believe the RAW says you can take two transports seem to think that it was not intended. I'm just holding you to your own definition of poorly written.

Sorry, Star. I should have specified who I was replying to. I was referring to Insaniak's example, not yours.

Nurglitch wrote:
If you want something closer to home, to avoid the specious argument that the Tactical Squad entry somehow over-rides the general rules for Dedicated Transports in the Space Marine Codex, we could take the heading "Dedicated Transport" in the unit entry to unambiguously mean that Tactical squads are limited to selecting one dedicated transport rather than two dedicated transports.

The problem with that is though, that the Codex trumps the rulebook. If the Codex in fact gives the option for two transports, then what the rulebook says is a moot point.

Edit: Sorry for the multiple posts.

Rated G:

I'm not talking about the rulebook, I'm talking about the unit entry for Tactical Squads in Codex: Space Marines.

The unit entry has the heading Dedicated Transport, under which three options are listed. The options are exclusive because the heading is explicitly singular. The unit can have a dedicated transport, and that dedicated transport can be either a Rhino, or a Razorback. It can be a Drop Pod if the unit is 10 models strong.

Rated G wrote:Because that is the definition you yourself gave a few posts back: "It's only poorly written if we assume that the squad is not intended to be able to take 2 different transports."

Poorly written from our point of view...

If they actually intended the unit to have access to pods and APCs, it's not poorly written at all

Im going to argue that intent also says yes.

SM unit uses combat squads, sets 5 up in each. Sounds fluffy and reasonable maybe.

Better though. Thunder hawk transport left the empty Rhino/RB for the marines to get into after they DP in. Aerial strike

I don't think it's poorly written at all. It says: Dedicated Transport right there in the entry. Case closed.

Darkness wrote:SM unit uses combat squads, sets 5 up in each. Sounds fluffy and reasonable maybe.

Not as reasonable when you consider, as was pointed out earlier, that they can't likewise just take two Razorbacks...

Nurglitch wrote:It says: Dedicated Transport right there in the entry.

The word 'Transport' doesn't automatically mean 'single vehicle'

It can just as easily refer to an entire motor pool... As in, the motor pool is the transport assigned to the unit.

Likewise, a Municipal Public Transport system doesn't automatically include only one bus...

Yes, in fact the term "Dedicated Transport" is in fact the singular and thus 'automatically' refers to a single vehicle.

In the Dedicated Transports section, on p.135, the plural is used to refer to the motor pool.

Equating the reading of "Dedicated Transport", to mean a single vehicle, with the reading of "Municipal Public Transport System", to mean a single vehicle, is to make an argument by bizarre equivalence.

As you pointed out earlier, what we have is:

1. "Certain Space Marine units have the option of selecting a dedicated transport vehicle." (Section: Transport Vehicles, p.135)

2. "May select a Rhino or a Razorback." (Section: Troops, Unit Entry: Tactical Squad, Unit Entry Section: Transport Vehicle, p.134)

3. "If the squad numbers ten models, may take a Drop Pod (see page 135 for points costs)." (Section: Troops, Unit Entry: Tactical Squad, Unit Entry Section: Transport Vehicle, p.134)

Thanks to the section entitled Dedicated Transports on p.135, we know that certain Space Marine units can take a dedicated transport.

Which Space Marine units are those "certain Space Marine units"?

Those Space Marine units with the "Transport Vehicle" heading in their unit entry.

How many dedicated transports can those Space Marine units take?

Those Space Marine units can take a single dedicated transport vehicle, as indicated by the sentence on p.135 and the corresponding heading on p.134.

Beating a dead horse, Nurglitch.

I wasn't arguing the point, just your claim that the use of the word 'Transport' in the title is proof of anything all by itself.

insaniak wrote:

Rated G wrote:Because that is the definition you yourself gave a few posts back: "It's only poorly written if we assume that the squad is not intended to be able to take 2 different transports."

Poorly written from our point of view...

If they actually intended the unit to have access to pods and APCs, it's not poorly written at all

Agreed.

insaniak:

In that case your argument failed, and missed the point as well, because I was saying that the sub-heading "Dedicated Transport" both agrees with the description of certain Space Marine units only taking a single dedicated transport, and limits the unit to a single choice.

But now that you mention it, the use of the term "Dedicated Transport" as the sub-heading for the dedicated transports that a unit may take does in fact, by itself, stand as sufficient proof that the options listed are exclusive.

Nurglitch wrote:In that case your argument failed, and missed the point as well, because I was saying that the sub-heading "Dedicated Transport" both agrees with the description of certain Space Marine units only taking a single dedicated transport, and limits the unit to a single choice.

... only if you assume that the word 'transport' can only mean the singular... which is false.

But now that you mention it, the use of the term "Dedicated Transport" as the sub-heading for the dedicated transports that a unit may take does in fact, by itself, stand as sufficient proof that the options listed are exclusive.

Again, only if you assume that the word 'transport' can only mean the singular... seeing a pattern yet?